Search

Background: Historically, researchers have been apt at conducting research on, rather than with, the people who are the focus of their efforts. Such approaches often fail to effectively support and benefit the populations they are intended to. This study aimed to explore the preferences of people with lived experience for engagement with research either as research participants within studies, or through active involvement in mental health research. Methods: Data for this paper were collected in three separate lived experience agenda‐setting studies conducted over a 9‐year period from 2013 to 2022; two group discussions and an open‐ended online survey. Data were combined and thematic analysis undertaken. Results: Participants described the inclusion of lived experience as a critical ingredient and the highest level of knowledge and expertise in mental health research that should lead to knowledge generation and research agendas. Participants discussed the importance and value of research that enables sharing experiences and stories, expressed a need for flexibility in research methods for choice and agency, and support for greater active involvement of people with lived experience across all stages of research. Participants also spoke to the need for perspective and knowledge generated from people with lived experience to have equal power in research, making space for lived experience voices across multiple aspects of research, and greater respect and recognition of the value of lived experience. Conclusion: Lived experience in mental health research is coming of age, but dedicated, cocreated development is needed to get it right. People with lived experience increasingly understand the value their experiential knowledge brings to the mental health research effort, and describe a wide range of ways that researchers can support them to be research participants, and to get actively involved. Power‐sharing, respect and recognition of lived experience as central to effective mental health research are the keys to 'keeping it real'. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience of mental health problems or distress either personally, and/or as carers, family and kinship group members, were involved in the coideation and codesign of this research. All authors identify as people with lived experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global population is ageing rapidly and there is a need for strategies to promote health and wellbeing among older adults. Nutrition knowledge is a key predictor of dietary intake; therefore, effective educational programmes are urgently required to rectify poor dietary patterns. Digital health technologies provide a viable option for delivering nutrition education that is cost‐effective and widely accessible. However, few technologies have been developed to meet the unique needs and preferences of older adults. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore technology use among older adults and qualitatively determine the content needs and design preferences for an online nutrition education resource tailored to older adult consumers in Australia. Methods: Twenty adult participants aged 55 years and older (95% female) participated in one of four 2‐h participatory design workshops. In each workshop, prompted discussion questions were used to explore participants' technology use and preferences and to explore content needs and design preferences for an online nutrition education resource specific to older adults. Results: All participants were regularly using a range of different devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets and computers) and reported being comfortable doing so. Participants wanted a website that provided general nutrition information, practical advice and recipes. To enhance engagement, they sought a personalised resource that could be adjusted to suit their needs, included up‐to‐date information and allowed for easy sharing with others by exporting information as a PDF. Conclusions: Participatory design methods generate new knowledge for designing and tailoring digital health technologies to be appropriate and useful for the target audience. Specifically, older adults seek an online resource that has large and simple fonts with clear categories, providing them with practical advice and general nutrition information that can be personalised to suit their own needs and health concerns, with the option to export and print information into a paper‐based format. Patient or Public Contribution: Older adults actively participated in the development and evaluation process to generate ideas about potential features, functionalities, uses and practicalities of an online nutrition education resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Globally, there is an increasing demand for quality medical rehabilitation services. This is the first article of a two‐part series showing the findings from the Rehabilitation Choices study in which the main aim was to understand the current landscape of decision‐making, enablers and barriers to access appropriate rehabilitation services in the Australian setting. In Part 1, these insights were sought from a healthcare professionals' perspective. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews with a discussion guide that was codesigned together with rehabilitation clinicians and rehabilitation researchers. Themes and sub‐themes were identified using an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed a heterogeneous group of 31 professionals who are involved in making referral decisions about rehabilitation or who design and deliver rehabilitation programs, including specialist rehabilitation physicians and other medical doctors across in‐patient, outpatient, and primary care settings, allied health professionals, rehabilitation service managers, nurses, multicultural health liaison officers and rehabilitation research scientists. Three key themes relevant to barriers and enablers to service access were identified from the data: defining rehabilitation; a lack of timely access to patient and rehabilitation service data; and patient diversity not expected by the system. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals who make decisions about rehabilitation referrals and services feel that it was necessary for them to keep up to date with information relating to rehabilitation services. There was some concern regarding what rehabilitation constituted and what services were available for different clinical indications. They also indicated that current systems did not consider diversity among patients' needs and goals. Their recommendations included the need for better communication pathways, improved referral systems and resources that could help provide best practice of rehabilitative care in the future. Patient or Public Contribution: Three study team members had a lived experience of rehabilitation as a patient or carer, and previous experience participating in qualitative research. They worked with the study team to codesign the recruitment strategy, participant‐facing communications, the interview discussion guide, and the approach to the conduct of activities with participants and in the interpretation and contextualization of findings and all were involved in writing this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Social needs such as housing, employment, food, income and social isolation are having a significant impact on individuals, families and communities. Individuals are increasingly presenting to health settings with social needs, which are ill‐equipped to address nonmedical needs. Social prescribing is a systematic approach connecting the health, social and community sectors to better address social needs and improve health and wellbeing. Social prescribing interventions are being implemented world‐wide. With variability in health and social care systems internationally, it is important that social prescribing interventions are co‐designed with key stakeholders to ensure they can be implemented and sustained within local systems. Methods: This Australian case study provides a detailed description of the process undertaken to co‐design a social prescribing service model in a regional area. Four co‐design workshops were undertaken, two with health and social care professionals and two with community members. The project followed an iterative process of resourcing, planning, recruiting, sensitising, facilitation, reflection and building for change across the workshops. Results: Through this process, key stakeholders were able to successfully co‐design a social prescribing model of care for the region. Conclusion: By demonstrating the process and materials used in our project, we aim to open the 'black box' of co‐design for social prescribing and provide ideas and resources for others to adapt and utilise. Patient or Public Contribution: The project was designed and undertaken by a steering committee comprising university‐based researchers (authors C. O. and S. B.), local government (author D. A.) and health, social and community services (authors B. G., M. W., J. O. and S. R.). Members of the steering committee participated in project design, participant recruitment, workshop facilitation, data analysis and interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Design thinking is an iterative process that innovates solutions through a person‐centric approach and is increasingly used across health contexts. The person‐centric approach lends itself to working with groups with complex needs. One such group is families experiencing economic hardship, who are vulnerable to food insecurity and face challenges with child feeding. Objective: This study describes the application of a design thinking framework, utilizing mixed methods, including co‐design, to develop a responsive child‐feeding intervention for Australian families—'Eat, Learn, Grow'. Methods: Guided by the five stages of design thinking, which comprises empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing. We engaged with parents/caregivers of a child aged 6 months to 3 years through co‐design workshops (n = 13), direct observation of mealtimes (n = 10), a cross‐sectional survey (n = 213) and semistructured interviews (n = 29). Findings across these methods were synthesized using affinity mapping to clarify the intervention parameters. Parent user testing (n = 12) was conducted online with intervention prototypes to determine acceptability and accessibility. A co‐design workshop with child health experts (n = 9) was then undertaken to review and co‐design content for the final intervention. Results: Through the design thinking process, an innovative digital child‐feeding intervention was created. This intervention utilized a mobile‐first design and consisted of a series of short and interactive modules that used a learning technology tool. The design is based on the concept of microlearning and responds to participants' preferences for visual, brief and plain language information accessed via a mobile phone. User testing sessions with parents and the expert co‐design workshop indicated that the intervention was highly acceptable. Conclusions: Design thinking encourages researchers to approach problems creatively and to design health interventions that align with participant needs. Applying mixed methods—including co‐design— within this framework allows for a better understanding of user contexts, preferences and priorities, ensuring solutions are more acceptable and likely to be engaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Context: Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery‐based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery‐Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field. Design and Participants: A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co‐developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed. Results: This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer–researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers. Conclusion: Discovery‐based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery‐based research process through a coordinated, organisation‐wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings. Patient or Public Contribution: Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co‐developed and pilot‐tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co‐authors by editing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study developed a proposed set of person‐centred quality indicators (PC‐QIs) for services that assess older adults' care and support needs to determine their eligibility to receive government‐funded aged care services in Australia. Individual proposed PC‐QIs amenability for change within current organizational structures were explored. Barriers and opportunities to adapt service elements of the aged care assessment service to better align with the intent of the proposed PC‐QIs were identified. Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted over five phases. A scoping review identified domains of quality for aged care services as perceived by older adults. Service elements of an aged care assessment service were mapped alongside quality domains informing key attributes of each quality domain. Self‐determination theory was used to formulate each proposed PC‐QI to align with key attributes and quality domains. Consultation with a consumer group enabled revision of the proposed PC‐QIs. A focus group with clinicians evaluated the amenability of each proposed PC‐QI for change and identified barriers and opportunities to better align service elements with older adults' perceptions of quality. Results were informed by qualitative and quantitative data from a structured focus group. Focus group discussions were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive thematic approach by two independent researchers. Results: Twenty‐four proposed PC‐QIs were developed. Refinement to descriptors of the proposed PC‐QIs were made by the consumer group (n = 18) and all were affirmed as being amenable to change by aged care assessors. Barriers in meeting the intent of the proposed PC‐QIs were identified across five domains including: health care staff knowledge (18.7%; n = 3); clear communication (31%; n = 5); person‐centred approach (18.7%; n = 3); respect for client (18.7%; n = 3); and collaborative partnership with client (12%; n = 2). Participants made 21 recommendations. Of the five service elements in delivering an aged care assessment service, barriers in meeting the intent of the proposed PC‐QIs were identified at the intake and booking of an assessment and during the assessment. Conclusions: Recommendations identified provide assessment services guidance on ways to adapt service elements to better align with older adults' perceptions of quality. Patient and Public Contribution: Patients and carers were involved as collaborators in this project at the protocol stage which included participating in discussions regarding the refining and modification of the protocol, refinement of the proposed PC‐QIs, data collection forms and supplementary information for participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor quality sleep in hospitals may be problematic for patients, negatively impacting their recovery and wellbeing. This project aimed to investigate the effectiveness of codesign in addressing key issues affecting sleep disruption in the healthcare setting. Methods: Codesign with patients, staff and consumer representatives was conducted in an acute metropolitan tertiary public hospital in Sydney, Australia. Through a four‐stage process, a multimodal intervention to address and reduce the impact of sleep disruptions among hospital inpatients was created. Pre‐ and post‐intervention evaluation was used to determine changes in patient‐reported sleep disruption. Results: 'The HUSH Project' (Help Us Support Healing) intervention resulted from the codesign process, which included the provision of HUSH Sleep Packs (with earplugs, eye masks and herbal tea), patient information resources, and ward‐based Sleep Champions. Survey data from 210 patients revealed a statistically significant decrease in patient‐reported noise disturbances for patients in shared rooms following the 4‐week intervention period of the HUSH program. Conclusion: The HUSH Project demonstrated that a novel multimodal intervention may be valuable in reducing sleep disruption in hospitals. These findings also indicate the benefits of using codesign methodology to support improvement projects that seek to enhance patient experiences of care. Patient or Public Contribution: This project utilised codesign methodology, which involved significant contributions from patients and consumer representatives, from research conceptualisation into intervention design, implementation and project evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]